Extract mutual coupling between array elements by setting up multi-port S-parameter simulations in CST.
Set up a multi-port S-parameter simulation in CST for mutual coupling extraction between array elements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num_ports | Yes | Total number of ports in the array | |
| port_numbers | No | Explicit port numbers to include (default 1..num_ports) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a setup action, which is non-destructive, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing ports or runs simulation). This is adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and purpose. No wasted words; efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple two-parameter schema with good descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the tool's setup purpose well. However, it could mention that it does not run the simulation itself, but this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'multi-port' aligns with num_ports). Baseline 3 applies; no significant enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set up a multi-port S-parameter simulation'), the object ('in CST'), and the specific purpose ('for mutual coupling extraction between array elements'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cst_array_beam_steering or cst_array_compute_factor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many array-related siblings (e.g., cst_array_beam_steering, cst_array_compute_factor), but the description does not provide any context for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.